Category Archives: government

The People, the Vote, Representation, and Why All Governments are Tyrannies

By virtue of their underlying metaphysical premises, all collectives, no matter what parameter is selected as the focal point of group identity, necessarily sacrifice individuals.  And they will do this categorically, I should add, with varying degrees of conspicuity.  In a collective, then, we should really spend our energies examining who is not represented rather than what is. Because the necessary lack of real representation for the individual reveals the inherent hypocrisy and contradiction of government, even one which claims that it is established “for the People”.

“The People”, you see, is merely a  projection of the State.  It—not “they”—is a single political unit, based on the metaphysics which give the  group an existential Oneness…that is, all individuals are nothing…they are an epiphenomenon, at best, of the collective metaphysical context. In a collective, even one like the “People”, the individual, if acknowledged at all by the State, is an abstract conceptual figment of the group, not the other way around.  “The People”, is a device, practically speaking, then…an artifice, wherein the government’s natural objective, itself, is projected upon the masses of individuals.  Authoritative Power—the State—must and will only ever serve itself, because Authority is always its own end; and thus Authority is always absolutely singular. The object of its rule, then, the “People”, will become and must be a mirror image of itself.  Individuals by nature stand in opposition to the singularity of Authoritative Power, and the first step in eliminating this opposition is to name individuals after itself.  And from this we wind up with the “People”.  Not “the Persons”, you see, because that would suggest an individual metaphysic, not a collective one. But the People…well, that implies no individual distinctions whatsoever, I submit.  What I mean is that individuals are metaphysically redefined as merely a euphemism for the State, and then are “served” and “represented”.  What this means, practically speaking, is that representation is nothing more than the difference between those who at any given moment are a nominal expression of the State’s ruling power—those who’s votes result in their candidate winning—and those who are not—those who’s candidates lose.  And this is why, inevitably, in all governments, without exception, in all places and at all times, the evolution of the State reveals the exponential rise of government power and the exponential decline of the power of the individual.

A common counterargument to this is to claim that since the vote is driving the polices of the State (at least in theory), then power must thus truly be a derivative of the will of the People.  But, remember that “People” is a collective ideal, and has nothing to do with any individual whatsoever; it is utterly opposed to the individual at the very root level of metaphysical definition. It is, as I have said, nothing more than an expression of the State, itself.  So, the “will of the People” can extend no further than how the “People” is defined, according only to the State, because the State is by its nature, purpose, and definition an authoritative enterprise, period. Full stop. Further, thePeople”, as opposed to the “Persons”, implies collective unity, where the sum of all individuals becomes a thing itself…and even more, becomes that metaphysical singularity which the State exists to “serve”.  The State cannot serve the individual qua the individual.  For the individual is, alone, a natural epistemological, ethical, and political singularity, opposed to the singularity of the Collective (e.g. the “People”), and thus cannot be controlled by the force of Authoritative power, because the individual, himself, is the root of his own existence by his primary and absolute ability to exist in the first place; and being the root, must manifest his existence by his OWN power—his will—and not the power of that which is outside of him.  So the State does not collectivize the individual out of mere convenience’s sake, but because the coercive nature of Authority is entirely incompatible with the individual in every way possible, all the way down to the root of existence itself.  And so by defining man as “People”, the individual is supplanted by the group, the group not only thus to merely possess additional existential properties from that of the “simple” individual, but possessing an entirely new and utterly distinct metaphysical definition altogether, which inexorably eradicates the individual by that metaphysical distinction.  The individual is no longer existentially valid when compared to the collective.  “The People” then becomes the real political unit which the State “represents” and “serves”.

Of course, before the “People” can be “served”, they must be practically defined.  This definition must be bereft of any individualist contribution.  Individuals are not recognized as legitimately existant by the Authority because they possess their own will, which Power cannot recognize, being incompatible with will, as will is rooted in choice and thus reasoning, whilst power is rooted in violence and thus madness.  So the “People” are a metaphysical collective created by the State, which is by nature and necessity devoid of individuality.  Then, for the purposes of political expediency on the part of the ruling classes, the “People” is capriciously (and hypocritically) segmented into abstract categories like “race”, or “economic class”, or “social class”, or “religion”, or “culture”, or “native status”, or “patriotism”, or  “disadvantage”, or some combination thereof, etc. etc. from which “issues” to be voted upon can be harvested and which thus are duly and dutifully accepted and employed by the various political constituencies as an expression of “self government”. As if.

This is all fallacy, of course, because when we are operating within the context of power at the hands of a ruling political elite which manifests its will via the absolute legal (not moral) right to compel behavior by force (the Law), then any and all political issues and any and all acts of political participation by the “People” must necessarily serve the State, period. The political interplay between the Governement and the Governed is nothing more than an ouroboros of State Power, wherein the State devours itself in the form of the “People” (the collective Ideal which is fundamentally incarnate in the State) in order to feed and grow itself.  And this contradiction inevitably leads to its calamitous downfall—it is the proverbial snake swallowing its own tail, and thus it simultaneously starves and gorges itself to death until it finally collapses, taking whole bloody swaths of humanity with it back to the fiery pit of human avarice, hubris, madness, and self-loathing from which it springs.

Now, a little more about voting.

The option of A or B (or C or D or E, etc.) as seen in the political act of voting, is an invalid choice.  True choice is never really between A or B, but in actuality is this:  between A or NOT A, and B or NOT B.  I can have one or the other, or neither.  Having neither must be an option for a truly free person.  But notice how “neither” is conspicuously absent from the voting process when the State is officiating.  This is because “neither” is in fact a rejection of the State. But the State, being Authority, which is Force, which is violence, cannot recognize such an option as “NOT itself”, and thus cannot recognize the individual’s true choice and thus never, ever allows “neither” to be an option.  For even those who do not vote at all vote, and by that I mean that they will be subject to its results, whether they like it or not.  The choice not to vote leaves those who do not vote under the thumb of the elected rulers every bit as much as those who do.  And thus their choice not to vote, like voting itself, is not really a choice at all.  You see, once the individual has been metaphysically redefined by the State according to the ephemeral and furiously destructive principles of collectivism, voting becomes an entirely State-run, State-serving, State-centerened, State-expanding exercise, period.

 

Advertisements

How the Law Promotes Crime (Part Two)

The law, by making right and wrong a function of obedience, thus nullifying morality by nullifying choice, does not provide any fundamentally rational incentive for the individual to avoid the behavior the law forbids under threat of punishment via the state. The law tacitly proclaims the individual irrelevant. Even more than irrelevant. Counter productive; an aberration; anathema; a mistake; unnatural. The individual, you see, is self-aware, which means that he thinks for himself, and has an absolute frame of reference from himself (singular) that demands that he exist and act to and for himself. This is of course not what the state wants; it is not reflective of what the state needs and what the state is. The state, by its nature, demands that all individuals view reality from the perspective of the state, and act to and from and for ITSELF. Because the state is Authority. It is the incarnation of the collective ideal to which all men are then bound. The collective ideal is the reality which necessitates the Authority of the state…to compel individuals out of their individuality and into the collective.

But the individual of course cannot do this…for he only observes reality from a single existential position: himself. By his nature and because of that nature the individual chooses. He must chooose. He must will.

Because knowledge (thought) is rooted in distinctions between truth and lie, and good and evil, knowledge is the practical working out of these distinctions. And the practical working out of these distinctions implies choice. But the law sees choice as anathema…as completely unnatural. The law is force, and force has nothing to do with choice. Man cannot choose to obey because obedience implies force, and force makes choice irrelevant.

Absent choice—absent will—man has no frame of reference for himself. A man whose choice is considered illegitmate must also consider his existence illegitimate. For absent choice the distinction between right and wrong and true and false and good and evil are irrelevant to him, and thus any knowledge, even that of his own SELF, is entirely meaningless. And this, taken to its logical intellectual conclusion, means that no one actually exists to obey the law in the first place. As soon as the law becomes the ethical standard the individual ceases to exist. He cannot obey because he isn’t real. His very nature is anthethical to reality as defined and accepted by the state. And thus the state’s law delegitimizes man at the level of his root existence. And because he has been delegitimized, he cannot be truly, rationally, incentivized to obey.

The state will claim that the law safeguards the best interests of the individual (sometimes by explicitly collectivizing him, a la Marxist totalitarianism). But this is impossible because it cannot recognize him. And the individual, I submit, understands this fact in his base instinct, and therefore the market for crime goes up because the law provides no meaningful reason to obey it. All it can offer as a disincentive is punishment, but this inevitably fails because for man to be perpetually under law he is, implicitly, already punished, and perpetually so…for existing. And so if the desire or reward for committing a crime outweighs the chances of getting caught or the penalty, then crime, by the very ethics which underwrite the law, is going to be worth it. Crime thus has implicit value. And this, dear readers, is why there is a market for crime.

Further, and even more troubling, is that a given individual may view the commission of a crime—the disobeying of the law—as an expression of his truth…of his individuality. And thus he may feel empowered and even free by his crime. Of course certain acts defined by law as criminal can certainly also be immoral—as in the case of theft or murder, for example—but the criminal, should he intuit in his soul nothing more than that the law renders his individuality meaningless, will not apprehend this. He may engage in crime as a sort of means of self-expression, not understanding that just because an act is illegal does not mean that it is not also actually immoral.

Now, for those of us who do understand that violations of other individuals are immoral, the law at root has nothing to do with why we do not commit such acts. We do not commit them because they are illegal but because they are immoral. We reject them upon the truth of their immorality in spite of the law, understanding that the law has nothing to do with evil or good, but only with power. I submit that if someone refrains from murder simply because he does not want to be punished then he has committed murder already in his heart…because he has conceded the law’s false morality and rejected the value of the individual. For there is nothing truly immoral under law because the law does not recognize morality’s one true and rational standard:

You, and me.

How the Law Promotes Crime (Part One)

We are led to believe, in western Democracies, that legality and morality are related.  We are taught that our governments make something illegal because it is, at root, immoral.  We pride ourselves in our ability to discern true evil from true good and then dictate behavior to men, through the coercive power of the state and according to the law, in the service of the good, where the good is not merely what is subjective according some ultimately unproven/unverified root assumption about the nature of reality (metaphysics), but is Absolute…or as close as humanity can come to it.

The truth, however, is that legality and morality are entirely different ethics, as I have discussed in previous articles on this blog. If something is illegal, then it is only immoral apart from the law. That is, what is illegal may be immoral, but it can be so only when it is removed out from under the auspices of law and the metaphysics from which law stems.  That is, though an illegal act may also be immoral, the law cannot recognize it as such.  It is NOT immoral according to the law.  This is because ethical behavior dictated by law precludes choice, because the law FORCES behavior via the coercion of the state regardless of one’s will to engage in it or not.  This is the nature of law…this is the whole POINT of law.  Obedience, not choice, is how the law is fulfilled.  And obedience means that ethics are rooted in authority—the State—and the authority’s legal imperative to compel man to submit to the law by violence, if necessary.  To underwrite ethics by requiring submission to authority as the means by which ethical behavior will be brought about renders choice irrelevant.  “Obey or die” is the fundamental mantra…meaning that under law the authority, the State, has the right to force you to act in specific ways that the law deems ethical, up to and including your death.

Morality on the other hand—that is, true good—demands choice, and so it can have nothing fundamentally to do with law.  To be moral means necessarily to act morally.  And the only means by which one can act morally is to will it.  To choose it.  Only choice makes an act truly moral or immoral.

The reason that crime is never eliminated in a society ruled by law and not by choice has nothing to do with human nature—that “there will always be bad people” as we are so often told.  This is merely a form of ethical determinism which ultimately renders morality irrelevant, and paves the way for rapacious and mendacious men to seize power under the guise of “keeping the peace” or “ensuring a civilized society”.  It’s all a lie.  If you don’t belive me, take a cursory look at America’s national debt and then ask yourself how a financial liability like that happens in the absence of selfish, power-drugged, self-worshiping boobs.

The answer is, it doesn’t.

Further, the argument “there will always be bad people” is non-falsifiable, which makes it tautological, and ultimately nonsensical.  The argument is that there will always be bad people because man is inherently bad.  In other words, there will always be bad people because there will always be bad people.  But here’s the truth:  The reason why crime is never eliminated under the rule of law is because law, by necessarily excluding choice, wrecks morality.

The only way to eliminate crime, you see, is to eliminate the market for crime.  The only way to eliminate the market for crime is to incentivize people to stop buying it, as it were, which in turn demands that men will stop selling it.  And the only real and fundamental way to disincentivize crime is to define and value it according to what is truly immoral; and the only way to do that is to make ethics a function of choice, not obedience to the law. Once we define crime as truly immoral, and rationally and objectively so, and value it as such, man can understand that it is rationally and objectively destructive to himself, at all times and in all contexts.  And thus, the consequences for crime are real, absolute, and existential. [Note: A discussion of morality as a function of an objective metaphysical premise—that is, a rational definition of the nature of reality—is beyond the scope of this article; please reference this blog for other articles dealing with this topic.]

Law cannot make crime immoral, as I said, because it invalidates choice.  And so, at root, law cannot give a real, rational reason why people should avoid it.  “So you don’t get punished by the authorities” is not a real, lasting, or fundamentally meaningful incentive because the consequences for crime defined by law are not really objective, and thus have nothing to do with the fundamental nature of reality.  The consequences of crime defined according to the law have nothing to do with any real devaluation of man qua man.  The law serves the authority at root, not the individual.  It has nothing to do with man, and thus it says nothing about his true worth and his true value and his true morality.  And I submit that men instinctively know this.  And that is very, very important.

The law is not “to the man”, so to speak, but to the state.  To the authority.  Violations of law are not violations of morality when morality is defined according to the ethics of law, which is the only way the state CAN define it, because  the state is FORCE, by its very nature, not choice.  Thus, the commission of crime is really only bad for the state—the authority—not for man, himself, as far as the law is concerned.  And I believe that men instinctively know this as well.  Therefore, as far as the individual is concerned, who has been taught that morality is a function of law, breaking the law is only “bad” if he gets caught.  So crime becomes a gamble, not an act of immorality.  If one can commit a crime beyond the eyes of the authority, then there is no consequence for crime. The commission of a crime says nothing about the individual, morally and existentially speaking, because the law is not about recognizing his individuality and therefore his will and choice, but rejecting the legitimacy of these things, and thus is about nothing more than subordinating him to the authority.

Without the authority to enforce it, the law is neutered, and the law cannot define moral and immoral behavior, so a man not caught hasn’t actually done anything wrong, according to the law.  Unless you are caught and punished, you never did anything bad, because “right” and “wrong” are only relevant if the law judges you.  And before the law can judge you the authority must catch you.  So crime, again, legally speaking, is merely a gamble.  A game of chance; or a game of desire.  A high chance of evading the law can make the commission of a crime very rewarding; a desire that transcends the fear of getting caught and/or the pain of punishment makes it worth committing the crime.  But a truly immoral act is never worth it…and can never be worth it.  Period.  A truly immoral act can destroy the individual at his very root Self, now and forever.  And this, and only this, will ultimately deter men from acts of immorality, and eventually weed out from humanity those who would choose such acts for whatever vile reason.

I am, of course, not suggesting that men break the law…that would be an entirely false and foolish interpretation of my arguments here.  I am suggesting that if society’s objective is the elimination of crime, then we must understand the difference between morality and legality, and why the two are not compatible, and why the former is rational and the latter is not, and how thus the latter ironically guarantees the perpetuation and promotion of that which it seeks to end.

Feeling Free is Not Freedom: The size of the cage doesn’t matter

It doesn’t matter how the State makes you feel, it only matters what the State MAKES you. There is no difference in terms of real, actual repression between the citizen of a free republic and the citizen of an autocracy.  Indeed, for the one who desires to be truly, rationally free, freedom is infinitely out of reach in both contexts.  I find it failed reason and false hope to suggest or assert that one is closer to freedom simply because he is in larger cage.

And further, a premise is a premise.  And by that I mean that if we presume that man, by his very nature, needs governing in order to act in ways that are efficacious to his prosperity—which means that absent governing he will not prosper, which means inevitably he shall die unless he is COMPELLED to moral behavior—then we are saying that man, by nature, cannot efficaciously exercise his own will.  Which means that he simply cannot be free…at all.  ALL his actions MUST only occur under the umbrella of legal governing Authority. His very existential, not to mention social, context must be FORCED upon him, and within these boundaries are all his choices confined, which limits and constrains them ENTIRELY to the will of the Authority.  The size of the cage is irrelevant.  A cage is a cage; and since the cage implies absolute ownership and control of what is inside, there can be no freedom whatsoever within its dimensions. Though the edge stretch to the the sun, one’s every step is utterly defined by its boundaries. And they aren’t boundaries of human identity, but of Authority.  There is a world of difference between not being able to flap your arms and fly to the moon because your natural identity as a human being precludes it, and because the Authority forbids it.  And there is a world of difference between flying to New York because your natural identity as a human being enables it, and because the Authority allows it.

Both the republic and the autocracy, by their very existence, concede the premise that man MUST be governed.  For to say that he need not necessarily be governed begs the question “Is government a better choice?” But by its nature government cannot understand such a question. Government, being Authority, and absolutely so, (as there is no efficacy to Legality, the root of all association under government, absent the force of the State) has no frame of reference for its own absence. Add to that the fact that the question, once government is given legitimacy by simply asking it, is entirely irrelevant.

Government and choice, you see, are mutually exclusive ideas. To entertain government at all, even as a mere abstraction, they would HAVE to be. From the frame of reference of government, if the individual possessed the ability to discern between good and evil and act accordingly (exercise choice), he wouldn’t NEED government in the first place. That is, the very existence of government implies that man needs it; and if man needs it then the question of whether or not it’s better for him is moot.

So, both the republic and the autocracy organize individuals according to the premise that individuals require governing. The mere aesthetic differences in how that premise is observed is of no value to freedom qua freedom (freedom that is ACTUAL, and rationally consistent).  For both approaches are specifically designed to affirm, not contradict, the premise.  Men MUST be ruled.  And if that is the primary epistemological and ethical root from which society is spawned then there is simply nowhere for freedom to exist.  Freedom qua freedom is an impossibility therein.  Freedom cannot give rise to what it is not; and Authority—the State—cannot recognize, let alone accommodate, that which denies its very existence. In other words, you don’t get freedom from government, and you don’t get government from freedom.

Ideals, Government, and a Perpetual State of War

I subimit that the presence of government presumes a state of war, either explicit or implicit.  The implicit state of war presumed by government is naturally the least obvious and the least intuitive.  Government, by its very foundational philosophical premises, cannot in any rationally consistent way limit its authority to force all which exists outside of it to be absolutely subordinate to the collective Ideal which it specifically and singularly exists to enforce. (There is no such thing as a government which does not assume that man is a collective AT HIS METAPHYSICAL ROOT.) Incidentally, “absolute subordination” is a redundancy.  There is no such thing as “limited subordination”.  To own a part of another is to own all of him, because man is metaphysically ONE, not a collection of parts.  His consciousness is singular; his existential frame of reference singular, and therefore him SELF, the very thing which makes any aspect of reason or reality relevant and meaningful, is likewise entirely singular.  Extrapolating logically, then, we can see that absolute subordination is really absolute sacrifice.  And sacrifice means death.  To attempt to own and control what is ONE, of itself and to itself, is to murder it.

Since the collective Ideal is in reality purely an abstraction, it, itself, can have no empirical, material maifestation.  This abstract nature makes the Ideal infinite, for abstractions have no boundaries which the Observer, man, can perceive.  In other words, the collective—the People, the Nation, the Culture, the Workers, the Poor, the Marginalized, even the Laws of Nature/Physics which GOVERN all things etc., etc.—exists purely in the minds of men.  It’s not a thing.  However, you will notice that collectivists, and apologists for the efficacy of government of all stripes, either explicitly or implicitly deny this.  Underlying all their arguments is this premise:  The Ideal has both transcendence (has an existence that cannot be directly observed because it is “beyond man”, so to speak), AND it has legitimate, completely objective, practical actuality, which is to say that it can be manifest in the material universe, which is to claim that it IS, itself, material.  That which can be synthesized with the material must possess an inherent property of materiality…or at the very least the essences of the Ideal and material reality are not mutually exclusive, which means, for all practical purposes the same thing.  So what they are saying is that the Ideal is and is not something which can be materially apprehended.  This is pure doublespeak…but as the underlying arguments are at root entirely contradictory, its the best that can be done.  Unfortunately, the best that can be done, rationally speaking, when tried in reality, makes for hell on earth.

So the Ideal, you see, is not merely an IDEA.  It is an actual, but INFINITE, thing, which is beyond the RATIONAL capabilities and perception of any individual…well, any individual who has not received special enlightenment from the great beyond, so to speak.  And this is the root contradiction which demands war.  The Authority cannot rationalize THE COLLECTIVE IDEAL to you or me because reason is a function of man, and therefore is utterly insufficient to discern truth, which belongs WHOLLY to the transcendent Ideal. Reason is of man; but Truth is of the Ideal.  And just like that, Truth becomes something which is no longer up for debate.  It is what it is, and any questions from men are merely proof that by his very nature man is incapable of understanding. Reason is of man, and therefore debates, questions, objections, discussion, suspicion, doubt are all irrelevant and forbidden. Truth lay ONLY in the absolute and absolutely perfect and infinite Ideal, removed from man’s cognitive and perceptual powers.

Of course it’s really the other way around…man is the arbiter of truth.  Specifically, reason (rational/conceptual consistency), a root property of man, is the plumb line.  But an ideologue cannot be debated by definition.  You obey an ideaologue or you die.  And since government is an Ideal, so very many people die.  The Holocaust was a government program, friends.  And it could only have EVER been a government program.  And the contradiction of an “EFFICACIOUS transcendent Ideal” is precisely why.

The ACTUAL subjectivity of ideals is not, by definition, tethered to the rational/objective world, and therefore the Collective Ideal always morphs into a sort of all-powerful, inexplicable, causal, and determinative force.  Its inability to be falsified by its very absolute, reasonless nature means that it becomes a sort of “infinite Truth”—truth which serves as its own reference (a logical fallacy)—which can never be disproven because it is beyond question…because it is beyond man.  No matter how high the bodies stack up, there is no truth but THE Truth, and therefore nothing changes until everyone is either dead or there is no more infrastructure left to transmit the power of the authority (government) to the masses.  Usually it’s a combination of both—dead bodies and impotent authority.

The infinite and transcendent nature of the Ideal means that it can literally take on whatever definition(s) the Authority chooses, up to and including blatant contradiction.  If the Authority says that there are five lights, then there are five lights.  The fact that you SEE four is irrelevant.  The truth is not up to you.  It’s outside of you.  The Authority…those men specifically enlightened (somehow) by the transcendent Ideal TELL you what you see, they don’t ask.

The Truth is OF the Ideal, and by extension its Authority (governement).  But the “outside” material world, especially the individual, must be subdued and sacrificed because this “Infinite Truth” isn’t actually infinite as long as there is an “outside” of it.  But by the same token there is no such thing as an “outside of” the Ideal precisely BECAUSE it is infinite. Of course this contradiction never causes governments to reconsider their assumptions, but instead becomes just the excuse needed to either openly or tacitly exert totalitarian control over everything and everyone.  The contradiction is not reconciled by better ideas, but “reconciled” by destroying all that government deems as an imposter to Truth…which is anything “outside” of it.  Which is everything NOT it.  My existence, and yours, you see, is illegitimate. Your very consciousness is a lie.  The lie which necessarily and unforgivably offends the Truth that is the Ideal.  The only solution to the affront of your individual existence and your awareness of your singular self is death, ultimately.  The goal then, of every enforcer of the Ideal—of every government—its to manifest its “legitimate” and “Infinite Truth” upon all, INFINITLY (absolutely…totally…totalitarianism).  Which can only happen when all the liars—all who by nature utter the pronoun “I”—are dead.  Individual consciousness is an aberration; an illusion; an alternate reality which is really a non-reality.  The Ideal will wake up; and the You of your consciousness will fade like a vague dream come morning.  At least that’s the plan.  Hint:  It never really happens.  But not for lack of trying, as is evidenced by SO MUCH WAR.

Which finally brings me to the initital point of this article.  ALL governements represent collectives. It doesn’t really matter the specific pedigree—racial, national, religious, cultural, economic, etc.. All collectives are Ideals.  All Ideals are absolute and transcendent because all Ideals are abstract.  All Ideals then are incompatible with anything outside of them, and by extension anything outside of the Authority (government),which exists to enforce the right of the Ideal to subdue all things as illegitimate, untrue, and irrelevant according to the infinity of ITS Truth.  No Ideal then can accept the right of anything outside itself—which means outside of the Authority—to EXIST.  Compromise then, if seen at all, is ALWAYS a feint; always a means to an end, and the end is ITSELF.  All governments then, being THE Authority of THE Ideal, have only one objective when all is said and done:

World domination.

Government, then, implies absolute control, and this implies war, whether overtly or through the ideological reprogramming of the “unenlightened masses”.  Whether or not world domination can ever be practically achieved by a given government is a separate issue.  The root philosophy points inevitably to total control.  Total rule.  Period.  All Ideals are infinite; and all Ideals then will infinitely seek to destroy whatever they deem not of themselves. And they will do this through the power of government, because government is the REAL Ideal. It’s what actually has the visceral power to destroy. Government is not a figment. It’s real. and so are its guns.

Finally, keep in mind that this article is not dealing with the morality of GOVERNORS, per se, but merely government’s philosophical premises and the natural, inevitable conclusions. The goal of my work here is to merely enlighten as to the natural consequences of ideas through a rational and academic explication of premises and conclusions, not to condemn rulers as evil men. Most rulers are just people, like you and I. They truly desire freedom. My job is to simply explain why freedom and government are not compatible.

Authority, by Assuming Man Can Obey, Destroys Him: the State as an Example

One of the worst feelings in the world is the dread you feel in the pit of your stomach when you hear about some new political candidate who thinks  the State is the righteous track to some ethereal and impossible utopia.

Immediately the anxious waves of “what ifs” crowd my brain. ‘Oh my god,’ I think. ‘The hellscape we can expect if THAT person gets elected.’ And on I go, understanding all too well how my literal life could be in the hands of a person who holds objectively false ideas and philosophical premises, the error of which guarantees that I will in some measure, always more, never less, be sacrificed to those ideas. And it really doesn’t matter the political affiliation, though I understand that some candidates hold ideas more ostensibly rational than others.

Why doesn’t it matter?

Because merely the belief that ruling other human beings is a rational and noble enterprise to be pursued is proof that the ideas which they would like to lay upon their fellow man, when applied, always increase both dependency and misery, and death.

In fact, come to think of it, it’s pretty much a daily occurrence where some number of the governed die at the hands of government policy/action, be it war, or law enforcenent, or willful negligence such as we see in the arenas of immigration, foreign policy, healthcare or other social services; political propagand…heck, abortion funding alone could fill a thousand cemeteries.

Death, you see, is a corollary to rule. It simply must be. In fact, we all at least tacitly accept this as a necessary and perfunctory function of the State–to dole out death in the interest of social cohesion. After all, what is the practical root of the rule of law? To force compliance to the collective moral standard….choice is irrelevant. Authority commands, it does not ask. And to force the life of man is to presume to own it. That is, man’s life is not really his own. This we understand, all of us, on some level.

To sacrifice men to a specific external moral standard (the Law) and ultimately to a given collectivist ideology (all governments are metaphysically collectivist by nature) is what WE demand of government…lest we are tempted to ignore the log in our own eyes, so to speak. To rule is to force. And to force is to kill, fundamentally. So killing is always a necessary and unavoidable part of ruling. If the government is not killing (under the auspices of the Law, we hope, but sometimes not), then we understand it’s not doing its job. Individuals are by definition self-willed. Otherwise they aren’t individuals, they are just things. Their obedience then must always be compelled, because WILLFUL compliance is choice, not obedience.

But can’t we choose to obey?

There is no such thing as freely choosing to obey. Choice is simply not obedience, period. I understand that this is unfortunately not intuitive in a culture that is driven ultimately by fear of punishment mixed with the political artifices of “rights”, and not the wisdom of true morality. I know we, particularly as Americans, love to think of ourselves as self-governing, and therefore willfully, autonomously obeying our authorities, but the fact is that a greater oxymoron than “self-governing” does not exist. To govern self BY self is a contradiction in terms. You are either convinced by reason to freely act in a certain way or you are compelled by threats of punishment to act in a certain way. One is choice and the other is obedience. And government can only recognize the latter.

Choice acts utterly in service to the Self; obedience disregards Self and concedes an outside moral and epistemological standard, like the Law. Since individuals cannot BY the Self disregard the Self…cannot BY the Self truncate or limit or end the Self, because the Self is absolute (I’m speaking metaphysically here–foundationally, not figuratively as in “self-control”, or “self-discipline”), then the Self must on some level accept death in the service of Its obligation to obey the Law; which really means to obey the State. And if you think that death does not manifest literally and frequently, as a function of man being ruled, then you are either asleep, incapacitated, or mad. The government must kill men in order to rule them, because men–and this is the real kicker–CANNOT REALLY obey, and I mean literally, at any level. Obedience is an abstract idea. It does not exist empirically.

And yes, all obedience of which you are thinking right now in objection to my claim I promise you is entirely figurative.

Men are entirely moved by their own will, you see, as conscious, self-aware moral agents. Since their actions are FROM themselves, absolutely, then they can only be ultimately TO themselves, absolutely. Every action is by the Self and thus is in service to the Self. And this makes literal self-sacrifice impossible because one cannot by his Self destroy his Self. And since obedience is at root the sacrifice of the Self to authority–the limiting or ending of the Self–it contradicts man at the level of his root nature.

The point of the State, though, is to compel obedience. But since man cannot ever truly obey, calls for obedience are really calls for death. Therefore, practical, normal, daily application of government ends up manifesting a matter of working out which men will die at any given moment in order to maintain and maximize State rule without eliminating all men and thus contradicting governement by leaving the State with no one to govern. That is, government cannot sacrifice all men because then it doesn’t RULE anyone. And a government which doesn’t rule isn’t government (though, the death of all men is the inexorable march, which Government at root cannot halt because death is a LAW unto itself in this paradigm; so it either destroys everyone eventually or some pointless revolution where death is resisted with more death happens and resets the whole process ala the Matrix). But it cannot destroy NO men because to rule men necessarily means to kill them, since ruling is compelling obedience and man, being utterly self-willed, is incapable of obedience in any way that can satisfy the Law, which is THE collectivist moral standard, and exists wholly outside of man, which is why he must ultimately be forced to it. Since the Law is wholly moral, man, then, is wholly immoral. Thus, they are incompatible, and the result is that man must die. Therefore, the whole of government is really the destruction of man, which manifests itself usually in a drawn out process where the inevitability and necessity of the death of all mankind is mitigated by various contradictory policies about “rights” and “freedom” and “elections” and “representation” implemented in the ironical interest of keeping government from self-destructing due to the inherent irrationality of its root ideological premises. But make no mistake, a government which is killing is a government which is doing its job. It’s simply an unfortunate fact of the underlying philosophical principles.

Please understand that this is not a blame game; I’m not pointing fingers at “bad guys”. I’m not calling for any action beyond the acceptance of the simple, de facto rational processes to which thinking creatures are obliged. I have no interest in offering “practical” solutions, quite frankly. I have no ambition to solve the problems bad ideas cause in societies en masse. It’s not my bag. I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Plus, I’m way too cynical. Reason is the beginning and end of what motivates me. My only point is that ideological and philosophical root premises WILL see themselves through to their logical conclusions. Death and rule are corollaries. This is simply the objective case, period; illustration of this truth is the only objective to which I am dedicated.

The Difference Between Representative Government and Autocracy is Experiental, not Fundamental

The difference between an autocracy and a representative democracy is like the difference between a slave master who lets you do nothing you want to do, and one who lets you do something or things you want to do.

So, which one is better?

Hmm…

The answer may not be so obvious as you might think. We’d want to say the latter, but is it really? Well, yes and no.

Of course being allowed to do some things which please you is technically, and even practically, tangibly, and viscerally preferable to being allowed to do nothing which pleases you. But the point on which I want to focus is that whatever it is you do, when you’re doing it because someone else is letting you do it, you are of course acting entirely under the auspices of someone else’s authority to command you to act. You fundamentally act as a function of the will of another. Period. When you are governed (or ruled…the difference is semantic, not fundamental) all you do is in essence at the pleasure of someone else. And the hard, unpleasant truth of this then is of course that you aren’t really doing what you want to do, but what they want to do, as your behavior is ipso facto a necessary extension of their Authority, which is inexorably corollary to their will. And this means that you’re behavior is fundamentally an expression of them, not you.

Ouch.

Think about it. It’s perhaps not immediately accessible, but it’s a point worth grasping.

Now, to the individual, an agent of himself, who by nature expresses himself according to his own will, this is practical death.  It is the rejection of the Self (e.g. You qua You), which means the metaphysical erasure of the individual human being. And this results in an inevitable social psychosis, where the sacrifice of the individual to the State, whether overt or tacit, via the ostensible morality of social justice (common good, necessarily subjectively defined), results in the fundamental inability of individual denizens to see themselves as the natural, rational root and reference of what is both true and good. This is brought about by the perfunctory collectivization of the individual which happens when the individual is governed along with a number of others (that is, ANY State; ANY government); and it’s worth pointing out that this collectivization is fundamentally the subordination of the rational and the objective (the individual) to the fundamentally irrational and the subjective (the collective–the Nation, the Common Good, the Workers, the Volk, the Zeitgeist, the Ideal, etc.). In tandem with collectivization is the ipso facto moving of the moral (or ethical–we can interchange them here) standard away from the Individual to the Law (and they are mutually exclusive). One’s moral obligation becomes obedience to the Law rather than the choice to act in service to the sanctity of the Individual (obedience precludes choice by definition). Consequence for moral violation becomes punishment (an irrational consequence) by the State rather than the Self-defense of free people (a rational consequence).

In such a context individuals will see themselves as decidedly indistinct and ultimately superfluous products of intangible abstractions, like as I said the Nation, or the People, or even–and this may surprise you– the Laws of Nature, which have no practical, tangible, empirical essence, or any relevance distinct from those objects they are said to govern (control; which means create, though this fact is never admitted), or the Divine Will…it could be just about anything really, because these are merely semantic variations of the root collectivist metaphysical premise which perpetually and inexorably defines and rules the subconscious mind of a governed (ruled) people. Once people accept that they are not fundamerally of themselves and do not fundamentally exist to themselves, they, under the artifice of “freedom” in, say, a representative democracy, will naturally gravitate towards whatever collectivist flavor they happen to find appealing. And this suits the ruling classes just fine, whether they know it consciously or not, because for whatever else it might mean, it necessitates that the people never question the foundational premise of all governed peoples: they have no root Self, and therefore their existence is only possible via the control of some outside authoritative force. And what’s more obviously authoritative  than Government? Government, we are led to understand, is the natural social and political effect of the infinite determining Cause…be it God or be it Nature, etc. etc.. And now you know why there are so depressingly and embarrassingly few sociopolitical Voluntarists (“anarchists” you might say, though I despise that label). Because collectivism has so many shiny and fetching and complex and colorful varieties, and individualism only has, well…you. Lol.

Once the collectivist metaphysical premise has been conceded (and entirely synthesized) people wake up every day willingly accepting that life is in every way and in every context the inexorable march of Death…of the inevitable nullification and eradication of their minds and independent persons. Which they are told are illusions, but don’t really feel like it; and this is why Death is so terrifying and why people never talk about it. It just is and must be, we are told, like the State, and so the terror and emotional anguish that its felt contradiction wreaks are perfunctory aspects of its “truth”.  So the thinking goes: why compound this with debates which challenge assumptions? Why compound anguish with uncertainty? And this is another reason why there are so very few Voluntarists. They must reject the assumptions undergirding…well, everything. Of Being itself. To get there is a hard and naturally lonely road, filled with those of all ideological pedigrees who will hate you and wish you’d just shut up, and those who claim fealty to ancient insufficient philosophies who will call you everything from a fool to a commie to a pantheist to a peddler of solipsism. And who really wants to walk that road? Not. Many.

At any rate, what happens as a consequence of this broad social Stockholm Syndrome (to the collectivist metaphysical primary) is a boiling and fetid cauldron of collective mendacity, idolatry, psychopathy, narcissism, suspicion, ignorance, hate, fear, and violence, which necessitates from the ruling classes ever increasing control and deception. But I must add that I do not fault the ruling classes directly for this; for they, too, are human, and have been suckled on the Ideal by which they govern. I do not hate them, and I do not loathe them, and I do not ascribe to them  any necessary overt evil intentions. For as they say ’round Buenos Aries, it takes two to tango. Remember, it was the Jewish people that demanded God give them a King. So, in some sense ironically, I admit that we are all in this together. Even the rulers are ruled by their ideas.

 

Why Government as a Rational Entity is a Delusion

Is government a necessity? Does man’s survival depend upon its establishment and Authority? That is, is it necessary to man’s existence? Is man doomed to extinction in an orgy of rudderless morality and practical insufficiency without it?

Thats crazy, we would say (well…most of us). We understand at least implicitly that people precede government. And after all, governments are made and established by people. We understand that to say man cannot exist without government and yet it is man which establishes governement is a contradiction which cancels them both.

Furthermore, if man is inadequate to existence–to life and survival–in and of himself, and therefore needs the coercive power of government to BE his sufficiency for him then this obviously implies that man is a naturally self-defeating, self-canceling agent, possessing inherent fatal shortcomings. But if this is true then no man among us could ever possibly be in a position to establish, organize, and operate an institution which exists specifically to redress man’s inherent fatal shortcomings.

The answer then to the question, “Does man need government?” is effectively null. It amounts to a zero sum. It’s a pointless question. That is, the question implies a contradiction that makes the whole thing entirely moot.

So then let’s formulate an ostensible rational premise from the knowledge that the question of man needing government isn’t a thing at all. It’s not a question of need because it simply cannot be a question of need. Man precedes government and government is a product of man. So “need” doesn’t comport, period. If man needed governement, then man could never have existed in the first place. Our new premise then, since man cannot need government, is: man chooses government because it’s better than not having government. And by “better” we mean more beneficial to the perpetuation and prosperity of man’s life. Man can survive without government, but with government the quality of life is, relatively speaking, much better. Government is efficacious, is what we mean, relative to no government.

This premise you’ll hear often when you bring up this subject. And I submit that the people who attempt to argue this codswallop are people who do not want to admit object dependency upon government, but simultaneously wish keep their anarchy flags furled. They want their cake and to eat it, too, but that’s not how it works. That’s not how it can work. You don’t get to be both free and not free. So far, contradiction has found no practical place in object reality as far as I’m aware.

The fact is that whether government is better than no government, or vice versa, is a red herring…a distraction, intentional or not, from the real issue:

Once it becomes clear that man cannot need government then we must admit that government is a choice. The issue isn’t whether government is better than none, it’s that at root the establishment of it must be, in fact, optional.

So what?

Government by its endemic and necessary nature and purpose is Authority, and Authority is force. And force by definition is incompatible with choice. This means that government by its very intended nature is not optional, it is compulsory. It is coercive. As far as the government is or can be concerned, you don’t get the option of no government.

Why?

Because it’s government!

And because it’s government it can never accept or even entertain the idea of no government. And thus, no matter how benevolent a government may seem, the only relationship an individual (the citizens) can have with an institution that specifically exists to collectivize him and compel his behavior against his singular nature is that of constant friction. There can only be total freedom or total control. Any middle ground is merely war (I don’t mean literal violence…I mean two competing philospohies with entirely different premises, conclusions, and objectives). Government being Authority and the arbiter then of Truth and Morality (via the Law) through force, has no frame of reference for a reality with no government. It can never, not will never, accept the idea that its existence is optional. Period. Full stop.

And thus we have contradiction number two. Man must choose to establish government, but government cannot recognize that it is a choice.

And the contradictions explicated in this article reveal why government cannot work, will never work, and must forevermore be doomed to inevitable despotism and dystopianism. A peaceful government is an oxymoron, and a delusion.

(Part Two: Why UPB Self-Nullifies) The Multitudinous Problems with Secular Ethics: A critique of Universally Preferable Behavior

[I apologize in advance for the tedious and highly technical nature of the following article. Bear with me. There really isn’t an easy way to do this. Thanks.]

1. If UPB is simply a set of possible choices, but does NOT reference an absolute moral Standard which makes compliance with UPB not simply preferable, but necessary in order to avoid some kind of irreparable existential contradiction, which thus implies and necessitates some irreparable existential injury (however that is defined…if it even needs to be defined at all), then UPB cannot claim to be either universal nor preferable, since there is no fundamental existential difference between compliance and non-compliance. In which case, UPB self-nullifies.

2. If UPB IS considered an inexorable natural law–referencing itself as its own absolute moral Standard–to which the individual is obligated or face some form of irreparable existential injury (however that is defined…if it even needs to be defined at all) then UPB is not preferable, but necessary, and perfunctory, and it self-nullifies.

3. If UPB is a legal (as opposed to ethical or moral) Standard–that is, Law as defined by a legal Authority, like the State–then by definition the individual is legally obligated to comply, and non-compliance results in punishment which, though legal, is, for all practical purposes, existential in its effect, since the manifestation of the ownership of oneself–i.e. free will/choice–while under State sanction is impossible. And therefore, UPB is not preferable and therefore self-nullifies.

Now, to expand upon point number two; and the reason is because this argument is, as I observe, the primary argument utilized by apologists for secular ethics:

If UPB is considered merely a de facto parameter of (one’s) Existence–that is, the perfunctory behavior of (one’s) Existence which affirms that (one’s) Existence actually exists, then UPB is nullified. Meaning, if we use the argument that because we observe that species or the individuals of that species behave in ways which are consistent with survival and reproduction and then claim that this behavior is actually preferable…we’ve contradicted ourselves and shown that such behavior cannot possibly be preferable, let alone ethical, and is only universal in that it is simply a de facto function of Existence qua Existence. In other words, if we remove choice–moral agency–from ethics entirely, or make it purely a function of the laws of nature, then a choice is never actually chosen. However, removing choice contradict ethics as meaningful in any rational or practical way, because amoral ethics imply behavior which doesn’t make a distinction between good behavior or bad behavior. So…why would any given behavior be preferable? It wouldn’t.

Also, notice how in scientific terms, which are the secularist’s terms of epistemology, ALL action is merely “behavior”…”choice” as a vehicle is sophistically smuggled in later–a bromide meant for and used by the small minority of non-communist atheists as a nod to the non-aggression principle; but UPB pairs with the NAP like salad pairs with Guinness.

If we accept Existence as the Metaphysical Primary, and therefore objective (empirical) reality and natural law as its practical Ethical and Epistemological derivatives , then we must admit that one cannot act via his Existencee in a way which contradicts his Existence…so regardless of what one does, and therefore what one chooses, one must necessarily always be acting ethically. To claim that one can somehow violate the terms of his or someone else’s (absolute) Existence by Existence, itself, is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, if UPB is said to be an Ethic derived from Existence, it is impossible for one to violate it, since one cannot violate the very thing that makes all behavior–like the “violation” itself– ultimately possible.

On the other hand, if we were to place UPB outside of (one’s) Existence and then argue that, as an Ethic outside of Existence (which is its own giant fallacy, given that Existence is the Metaphysical Primary for all apologists for UPB, I think), failure to follow UPB somehow amounts to an Ethical, and therefore moral, violation, and therefore is evil, and therefore obliges men to “prefer” UPB,  then the individual–as a rank existant–could neither be the source nor the reference for UPB, which makes whatever the individual prefers, and thus ultimately chooses, entirely besides the point…since his choice and preference are a function of himself. This again, as I asserted above in point 3., relegates UPB to the status of a Legal Code–the Legal Law–which means that coercion by a legal Authority, not preference, is the only legitimate and rational means of fulfilling the Law.

Now, if we claim that (one’s) existence is not in fact absolute, but somehow transient–an effect and not a cause, as it were, or a function of some Absolute Cause outside of (one’s) existence, then we would have no logical reason to conclude that behavior which promotes one’s existence is preferable to behavior which does not. For (one’s) existence, being non-absolute, is no more valid a state of nature than is his non-existence. Non-existence, because existence is not absolute, does not violate the Absolute Cause (that of which (one’s) existence AND non-existence is a direct effect), and therefore it can be no more rationally nor morally preferable to behave in ways that promote existence–of either oneself or others–than to behave in ways that do not. And therefore by what basis can we argue that UPB is actually preferable at all? No basis.

Interestingly, I have noticed that those who promote Existence as the Metaphysical Primarily DO, irrationally, make the distinction between Existence, the Primary, and one’s individual existence–because they understand that individual existence necessarily incorporates consciousness, and therefore they reject it as having anything to do with Existence qua Existence, because consciousness they assert is not objective, because it’s not empirical. But you see as soon as one makes the distinction between conscious existence (consciousness) and Existence the Primary, then whatever the individual consciously prefers--and all preference is conscious by definition–is beside the point. When you reject consciousness as fundamental to Existence you necessarily reject choice. Which means that you reject choice as fundamentally meaningful, which not only wrecks UPB but wrecks morality entirely, and makes any discussion of Ethics pointless.  I submit, however, that if we oblige consciousness to rational consistency, which is entirely logical (and a separate article), then reason alone serves as a perfect and categorical guide to Ethical behavior, because it makes Truth actually and objectively possible.

Part three very soon.

What’s all the Fuss About?: The de facto chaos of a society under Law

The political violence (mostly on the left) you see on the news every night is merely a perfunctory iteration of the Hegelian dialectic…used necessarily by collectivists of all stripes throughout the world over the years: create chaos–manage the chaos towards the desired outcome.

Now, when I say “collectivists”, I don’t simply mean the various iterations of socialism (Marxism, Fascism, cultural leftism…which is just Marxism with the “classes” loosely categorized by race). I mean anyone who believes that the social and/or economic interaction of human beings can rationally and efficacious be dictated in any measure by violence or threats thereof.  That is, anyone who believes that the State, which is at root purely force (for without the ability to violently punish those who do not submit to its authority, there is no State, period), can possess any legitimate role in the rational existence of humanity.

Whether you know it or admit it or not, you are a collectivist. You assert that individuals can and should be legitimately subject to a common moral code–which is nothing more than a collective identity, where they are bound to others not by choice but by force–that is, without their consent. For the very existence of government in any measure implies forced compliance. And force is mutually exclusive of choice. By definition.  There is no way to produce a free society by obligating at gunpoint individuals to codefied, collective behaviors. Period. The contradiction destroys reason; and since human freedom is reasonable, it must necessarily destroy freedom.

And minarchists, this means you, too.

You are either a voluntarist or you are a socialist; an individualist or a collectivist. There simply is no in between.

As long as social contract exists under the auspices of government power (i.e. obedience to Law as the highest moral value; thereby transferring the moral reference from the individual to the Law…which is really just the government, because absent the supremacy of state power (violence) the Law has no practical jurisdiction and therefore is irrelevant)…yes, as long as social contact exists under the auspices of government power, society will only ever be chaos controlled by the coercive violence wielded by a few over the many.

The fight for power and the necessary increase in governmental jurisdiction implied by the premise (that man needs government to survive his own existence…that absent someone to FORCE his obedience to an abstract, subjective set of codified values (the Law) man cannot exist) means that eventually the whole system collapses into pit of madness and blood. Then the few bleary-eyed survivors rebuild and start the whole process over again.

And that’s what the fuss is all about.

Welcome to the matrix.

And you thought it was just a movie.